Dumbest cop on the planet

This is a discussion on Dumbest cop on the planet within the Basic Gun Handling & Safety forums, part of the General Firearm Discussion category; Judge allows paralyzed cop to sue Glock
This has to be worst law suit I've ever seen!
Shouldn't this cop be in jail do to ...

The California Second Court of Appeal said Tuesday a jury could conclude a grip safety strong enough to withstand a 3 year-old's grasp "would minimize the risk of accidental discharge without undermining performance," and in a 3-0 ruling, allowed the case to continue.

This will be great until the kid turns 5 and has a better grip and is able to shoot again because of bad parenting. This completely ignores the negligence displayed by the officer, but what do you expect from the land of fruits and nuts, where insanity is the philosophy du jour.

Wow... oh well, he can have fun with all the lawyer fees, it won't get him anywhere.

I doubt if there are any lawyer fees. He probably scrounged around and found an attorney who would take this mess on a contingency, sort of like playing the lottery. Find a sympathetic jury and roll the dice. Happens all the time.

The officer was shot in 2006 if that gives you any idea how long this case has already been in the court system. The judge didn't award any money to the officer, he just allowed the case to continue, so the lawyer still stands a chance of winning the jackpot.

In one of the comments a guy said that Glocks are not safe and that although he can leave his Sig on the table and his cat can't shot him, if he were to leave his Glock on the table the cat could shot him w/ it. I've had a lot of cats in my life and not a one of them was going to be able to pull the trigger far enough to fire the gun. I would think a cat would be more likely to play around w/ it and disengage the safety and then hit the lighter trigger and fire a Sig than it would be able to fire a Glock. That's just my guess.

Let me see if I have this right. This Officer of the Law DIDN'T safely secure his gun in the same area his untrained young child rode (who was NOT in a child's car seat) and the tyke took said gun (Glock) and shot him. Did I get it right?

I'm I wrong in thinking that it is HIS fault that it happened? What did the Glock Company do that is wrong.

A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
Robert Heinlein

Wow... oh well, he can have fun with all the lawyer fees, it won't get him anywhere.

So you believe that there is no chance that some liberal jury would rule in the cops favor in an attempt to break the bad evil gun manufacturer? Or that they might rules in the cops favor simply because Glock can afford to pay something to the cop even though it wasn't Glocks fault?

25100. (a) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm of the first degree” if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control. (2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian. (3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person. (b) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm of the second degree” if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control. (2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian. (3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to the child or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417.

So you believe that there is no chance that some liberal jury would rule in the cops favor in an attempt to break the bad evil gun manufacturer? Or that they might rules in the cops favor simply because Glock can afford to pay something to the cop even though it wasn't Glocks fault?

Michael

Very unlikely, and Glock can also afford the best lawyers, depends on how bad he makes his little sob story sound.